Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Science Fan]

Don't worry, Harbal, you can continue to be a child and make personal insults with the apparent full blessings of the moderators on here. I'm done.

[Immanuel Can]

IC: I see you now running away from history,...

Please don't mistake my lack of interest in the tale you're spinning for some indication of being impressed.

[Immanuel Can]

IC: Oh, the old "associate atheists with Stalin trick." How about we mention Charles Manson, the BTK killer, and other mass murderers were Christians?

Oops. Overplayed the hand now. You don't even know what a Christian is, apparently.

Stalin never murdered anyone in the name of atheism,

Stalin murdered everyone he murdered in the name of Socialism, which he got from Marx, who called the critique of religion "the first of all critiques." Statistically, Atheism has been at the heart of the most murderous regimes in history. In fact, there is a 48% chance that any Atheist leader of any regime will murder at least 200,000 of his subjects. Look it up, if you doubt me. (It's simple: get an encyclopedia, and look up the wars that have even a remote chance to be considered as primarily "religious" in motivation. Throw in even the borderline cases. Then stack the death totals against those that are clearly not...such as pretty much all the wars of the 20th C. Do the totals. You'll see it.)

And that raises an interesting point. It seems that what floods in, after Atheism has done its work, is not peace and love, but rather an open invitation to any ideologue (usually socialist, in some form) to do whatever he (and it's usually a "he") has to do to make his utopian dream go forward. What Nietzsche predicted happens: the man regards himself as "beyond good and evil," or more correctly, as pursuing a "good" so high that all opponents of it are evil, and all can be exterminated without compunction, because they are holding back the advent of the ideal state, the triumph of the workers, social justice, or whatever recent dream has entered his fevered imagination.

That's how history has really happened.

...communism, which remains as a theistic belief. Go look up how Marx claimed an historical role being played out and history was headed for a certain end-state? That's a religious belief.

Imprecise: that's a secularized, formerly-religious belief, converted to an Atheistic one.

Marx was thoroughly secular, but having thrown out God, he turned to the idea of history as having its own teleology, with Marx himself as its foresighted prophet. You can say that's "religious," and I'll agree with you. But it's in no way Jewish or Christian. It's what happens when we substitute "God" for "the teleology of history," or worse, "the coming ideal State."

It's actually a really good argument for keeping things more "religious," if that's what you're looking to make. "Best not to slip into Atheism," it suggests. Vastly fewer people seem to end up dead when a person is motivated by a morally-grounded worldview --- with the possible exception of Islam, which has killed half of all the people in history killed by all the religions combined.

In point of fact, the "religious" war-deaths are no more than 8% of the total...just over 7%, to be precise. The vast majority have been killed either in non-religiously motivated wars, or more commonly, by the regimes of avowed Atheists.

[uwot]

In fact, there is a 48% chance that any Atheist leader of any regime will murder at least 200,000 of his subjects. Look it up, if you doubt me.

Mr Can, even by your impressive standards, this is spectacular bollocks. There is zero chance of finding these sort of figures from any credible source. The onus really is on you to show which batshit historian you gleaned this nonsense from.

[Harbal]

I'll give you the short version, and you can choose if you want to know more.

I think we're both pretty much set in our views, IC, I don't think there's any potential for movement on either side. I can live with that and I'm sure you can, too. Nevertheless, I appreciate your efforts to explain.

[Immanuel Can]

I'll give you the short version, and you can choose if you want to know more.

I think we're both pretty much set in our views, IC, I don't think there's any potential for movement on either side. I can live with that and I'm sure you can, too. Nevertheless, I appreciate your efforts to explain.

No problem. Anytime. Thanks for your patience.

[Greta]

One thing the Atheists and I all agree on: other than some kind of bare-bones denial of God, it has nothing to say...no opinions about morality, truth, reality, politics, meaning, justice, rights, the future, or any other thing -- let alone discrimination, religions, gender, homosexuality, and so on.

Secular society has huge amounts to say about "morality, truth, reality, politics, meaning, justice, rights, the future, or any other thing -- let alone discrimination, religions, gender, homosexuality, and so on" - reams and reams of considerations about these things as opposed to your silly, skinny book of myths.

The irony is that your silly book of myths - just a few hundred pages - somehow manages to be even more confusing and contradictory than the millions of pages of human thought produced since. The Bible provides ZERO guidance due to its constant internal contradictions - so it entirely comes down to interpretation of power-broking people, thus the book has spawned everything from death cults to multinational corporate religions.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Don't worry, Harbal, you can continue to be a child and make personal insults with the apparent full blessings of the moderators on here. I'm done.

To show what a humanitarian I am I have to agree with you here. Harbal is confusing himself with his avatar. But you can't seriously expect the mods to ban people for every childish comment. A certain poster on another site had a free reign of terror for long enough. He seemed to enjoy the experience immensely.

[Immanuel Can]

Secular society has huge amounts to say...

Maybe. But nothing it can rationally justify. It's all just talk, without any proof it's right-minded talk, or that it entails any obligation at all for those disinclined to believe any of it.

There's no value in mere opinions, if those opinions cannot be shown to be right. That's just noise.

[Arising_uk]

Stalin murdered everyone he murdered in the name of Socialism, which he got from Marx, who called the critique of religion "the first of all critiques." Statistically, Atheism has been at the heart of the most murderous regimes in history. In fact, there is a 48% chance that any Atheist leader of any regime will murder at least 200,000 of his subjects. Look it up, if you doubt me. (It's simple: get an encyclopedia, and look up the wars that have even a remote chance to be considered as primarily "religious" in motivation. Throw in even the borderline cases. Then stack the death totals against those that are clearly not...such as pretty much all the wars of the 20th C. Do the totals. You'll see it.)

IC conveniently ignores the links I gave him the last time he brought this up that showed that the total of the wars in the C20th in no way match the total dead of not even all the wars previous and given that there were no atheists for all that time we can presume they were believers so can nicely assume that the religious believer appears to be able to kill regardless of their being 'God's' or not. He also conveniently ignores to provide the population percentages compared to deaths in his calculations but that would get in way of his born-again dogma. On top of that he also ignores that technology provided the means for such destruction in the C20th and currently we can see Christians killing quite a few millions over the past couple of decades, no don't tell me - they aren't Christians but apparently they think themselves as such so why should we take IC's word for such things? Still, no matter the godbotherers appear to be back and this time they are heavily armed so we'll see for ourselves just how peaceful the world is. Oh! And does not IC's bible say that at some time in the future his 'God' is going to appear, lay waste to the world and slaughter billions of us and then rule the survivors with a rod of iron, a religion of peace and love my arse.

[Arising_uk]

...
In point of fact, the "religious" war-deaths are no more than 8% of the total...just over 7%, to be precise. The vast majority have been killed either in non-religiously motivated wars, or more commonly, by the regimes of avowed Atheists.

But those regimes weren't killing in the name of atheism were they. You appear to be two-faced in your position, does your 'God' not punish the duplicitous?

[Lacewing]

Don't worry, Harbal, you can continue to be a child and make personal insults with the apparent full blessings of the moderators on here. I'm done.

At the risk of alienating you both, I don't understand why there seems to be bad blood between you -- and I see value in both of you.

Harbal still makes me laugh more than anyone else -- and he used to have quite the fan base of people who sought out his writings for a good laugh. I do! He has an amazing ability to highlight the absurdities he sees with a simply-stated approach... which can often be hilarious when viewed from a detached position.

Science Fan, from the writings of yours that I've seen, I enjoy your perspectives and the way you communicate them. I can relate to them. And I appreciate that in the midst of all the self-serving know-it-all nonsense on the forum.

So I can only guess that Science Fan said something that inspired Harbal to strike with an insult, when Science Fan was trying to contribute something valuable -- and then maybe it went downhill from there. Maybe I've missed something horrendous that one or both of you did. But I doubt it. It must just be some weird cosmic battle that exploded in some sort of creative expression of opposition. I hope it can stay in the realm of entertainment, and avoid the slide into serious evil that the wingnuts on this forum believe in.

[Lacewing]

It's all just talk, without any proof it's right-minded talk, or that it entails any obligation at all for those disinclined to believe any of it.

There's no value in mere opinions, if those opinions cannot be shown to be right. That's just noise.

Do you think this doesn't describe you?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think this doesn't describe you?

Ad hominem. It wouldn't matter, either way.

It's an ideology were talking about, not a person.

[Lacewing]

It's all just talk, without any proof it's right-minded talk, or that it entails any obligation at all for those disinclined to believe any of it.

There's no value in mere opinions, if those opinions cannot be shown to be right. That's just noise.

Do you think this doesn't describe you?

Ad hominem. It wouldn't matter, either way.

It's an ideology were talking about, not a person.

I thought you would understand my challenge about how the comparison of what you said could apply to what you say in this forum. So, I'll rephrase: Do you think the same assessment and conditions that you've given for secularism -- all just talk without proof, mere opinions, and noise -- applies to your favored ideologies as well?